planetf1.com

It'd be interesting to see if there's any pattern to the causes of reliability. For instance, in the "good 'ol days" cars were engineered to be practically rebuilt after every session, let alone race. So they ran at pretty much close to their maximum tolerances. I should imagine that stressed components played a big part in breakdowns (this is pure guesswork, BTW). I.e. wear and tear.

Nowadays, components are engineered for a much longer life, so I'm guessing that breakdowns are caused not so much by stressed as faulty items, i.e. manufacturing or design defects, rather than parts giving up the ghost. Certainly I'd wager e.g. Honda's problems were more related to design than wear.

Could be talking complete rubbish, of course, but that's my educated guess

It also should be remembered that during 2008-2013 there was not an engine war, no development, the engines were basically spec so reliability should have been really good.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

Does this analysis only count for in race failures, and if so how much (if at all) does the Honda PU skew the data?

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}

I don't know how it fits in to your data, but my theory of reliability on modern cars v 'back then' is mostly about connectors.

My personal and family cars, and cars I worked on seemed to have about a 50% chance of it being a connector it there was a problem, not it is very unusual.

My race cars were usually 'stricken' by electrical or cooling system 'disconnects' but I have no idea how this converts over to F1.

Drove a lot a Jaguars then?
(only half joking I had an '86 XJ6 project car)

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}

Okay. From the title I was thinking that this was more PU focused but now realize that you're talking retirements in general.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}

RPM killed those 2004 engines. 100%. Loved hearing their sound. But rpm is far harder on connecting rods, cylinder sleeves, and pistons than torque. These current ICEs we're always more reliable on paper even in new regulations and development.

I love all F1 tech though so I've been pretty indifferent in my preferences for the most part.

_________________
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

Just as a related aside, many people do not realise how short the stroke is on the 'new' cars. It is not much more than a model air plane engine. Less than 40mm

Thank you for the insightful information Alien.

Our perception on reliability is jaundiced by the penalties that are usually attached to any reliability issues. So what we see is reliability issues affecting the start of the race (drivers suffering huge position drops) rather than during the race where a DNF is barely noticed.

In racing there is a well worn adage where if a car finishes a race, it is too reliable and thus too heavy. So mass must be removed. The opposite is that if the car breaks, something is too light, and weight must be added. In racing, finding this balance is where a lot of money and resources are spent. Even where the entire car may be underweight, being able to relocate mass can yeild noticeable performance gains.

Every nut, bolt, part is subjected to a comprehensive weight and stress analysis, in an effort to understand what stresses each part is subjected to, and hot to make it strong enough, but as light as possible. Computers have become a huge part of this process, and by running (for example) a Finite Element Structural and Fatigue Analysis do engineers come closer to finding that magic sweet spot.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvHjOToYE6P8W5CqiFU3vshFJVxUSZ9jobXuixh0JZAHX5tuR5

We did not have these kinds of tools a couple of decades ago, and the ability to make such detailed analysis has contributed heavily to performance and reliability gains.

But this is racing, and when you are locked in a battle worth many millions of dollars and the difference in performance between teams is so minuscule, each part is stressed to the absolute maximum. In today's racing, reliability is determined by each team's willingness to push the boundaries.

Here's a little true story that may assist in understanding. NASCAR has three tiers, and occasionally drivers in the top tier would race in the 2nd tier for money or just to learn the track. And they would usually win. That is because the regular second tier drivers are running for a championship, and thus their cars are not as stressed. But the ringers could run at the limit because they were in it to either win or blow up.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.

I spent lots of evenings and week ends on the drill stand or when I could bum time on the Bridgeport

Holes are the best thing to put in anything if you race

LOL Moby!

The technical terminology is "Swiss Cheesing".

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY

Yip. I was always short of cash, so if it wanted light, I had to make it so

Being more 'classical' I always called it well ventilated though

Thanks for the info - but are those retirements just down to 'mechanical' retirements? I think that accidents or errors shouldn't count in reliability

I for one enjoyed the return of unreliability in 2014. It was a throwback to the F1 I grew up with

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God

I rely on Prost



FA#14

Hmm. You seem to have failed to take into account that the old engines didn't need to last for more than one race, nowadays a driver leading a race will turn down the engine to minimise stress. Similarly the driver chasing will also turn his down if he thinks the chances of passing aren't worth the wear on the engine... if you had a new engine every weekend (or indeed every session) you'd be pushing that engine until it was screaming wouldn't you? So while the new engines may be more reliable, I don't think it's fair to compare engines being used sparingly with engines being thoroughly thrashed.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

I recall Brundle saying about the change of rule when it came out first, that not only he, but the manufacturers and engineers were surprised at how it went. The engine was stripped inspected and rebuilt over night between qualli and race day, he says sometimes between morning warm up and race was a major rebuild.

So when the rule came in with Parc Ferme there was a waving of hands and people strutting up and down saying it was a disaster, but a very short time into it the engines were even more reliable. He said that the discovery was that sometimes the strip and rebuild had made them more unreliable than more reliable.